There are a number of things one could do to accelerate the process that I've hinted at. I've been told by Environment Canada officials that it involves something like 13 trips to cabinet to get to the point of regulating something under CEPA. So some thought could be given to removing some of the structural barriers to getting to action that are embedded in the act.
I'm quite certain that changing the word “toxic” or adding another list wouldn't help that process at all. It doesn't deal with the structural barriers embedded in the act between when we identify something as a potential problem, to actually getting to the stage of action. I think it would be far more fruitful to focus attention on removing some of those barriers.